Challenge to Maryland AWB Submitted to SCOTUS

[AHM]

Yup, and once past the single judge it still needs 4 votes to go forward I think. But a Lawyer I'm not.

Yeah, no.
Because you're totally confusing the circuit justice system with the cert system.

In regards to getting a case accepted by the SCOTUS?

Yes. There is no "single judge" who decides
whether a petition is considered by the full court.
It sounded plausible, but then I read up on it.
It sounded plausible because I knew each circuit is assigned to a justice,
although I didn't know how that worked. And then I read up on it.
P. S.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

I notice you refrained from commenting on 1, which is the default for excessive abuses on 2 and 3 as you suggest. And the REASON for the 2a. Hence why 2 and 3 will never get excessive.

Yeah, I'm not into open threats of burning people's houses down.

 

[AHM]

Its long past time for article v......swamp isnt going to fix the swamp

Yep, if they keep poking the Eagle, they're gonna lose an eye.
Article V is one basis for the article of faith "never say never".

Imagine a 28th Amendment that monolithically replaces the 2nd Amendment with:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms​

shall not be infringed by the United States or by any State.​

Just throw that "militia" crap out the window,
and all the Donk wormtongue arguments about it not applying to individuals along with it.

Incorporate it explicitly against the states
(and thus all lesser jurisdictions which derive their powers from their state).
Give the gun-grabbers nothing to hang their hat on.

Without larding the text up with " or Tribe",
they'll be reduced to trolling Indian tribes into disarming themselves.
A receptive audience? You decide.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

No standing. We the court have no back bone to support the constitution. Good luck boys and girls.
No faith in the courts

 

[babygorilla]

Yeah, I'm not into open threats of burning people's houses down.

NOW who's head is in the sand?

 

[BigGreen2000]

Time for a convention of states! What's the quorum required, 2/3?

 

[firestorm]

Yep, if they keep poking the Eagle, they're gonna lose an eye.
Article V is one basis for the article of faith "never say never".

Imagine a 28th Amendment that monolithically replaces the 2nd Amendment with:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms​

shall not be infringed by the United States or by any State.​

Just throw that "militia" crap out the window,
and all the Donk wormtongue arguments about it not applying to individuals along with it.

Incorporate it explicitly against the states
(and thus all lesser jurisdictions which derive their powers from their state).
Give the gun-grabbers nothing to hang their hat on.

Without larding the text up with " or Tribe",
they'll be reduced to trolling Indian tribes into disarming themselves.
A receptive audience? You decide.

The problem is you are opening us up to an amendment that simply deletes the second amendment in it's entirety. And it is just as likely as getting a clean "Guns are protected, go to hell anti gun idiots." amendment.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

NOW who's head is in the sand?

Do YOU support burning down private residences of people of law enforcement?

 

[milktree]

Do YOU support burning down private residences of people of law enforcement?

Are these people the agents of a tyrannical government?

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Are these people the agents of a tyrannical government?

Yes or No is the answer I'm looking for, not avoidance to answer.

 

[AHM]

The problem is you are opening us up to an amendment that simply deletes the second amendment in it's entirety. And it is just as likely as getting a clean "Guns are protected, go to hell anti gun idiots." amendment.

Because if the Red States combine to convene a constitutional convention,
it's obvious that they would pass an anti-2A amendment.

 

[firestorm]

Because if the Red States combine to convene a constitutional convention,
it's obvious that they would pass an anti-2A amendment.

What leads you to believe that first they would be in control, and second that because red states started it they would have the votes to do what they wanted? This is a dangerous, terrible idea that has the possibility of completely rewriting the constitution and also changing the ratification requirements. They could make these changes, and then with a simple majority vote make the ratification requirements 5 states, or even remove the requirements altogether.

This is not some states get together to propose amendments, this is a completely untried system that allows the people appointed to the convention to make up their own rules, in any way they choose, with no restraint from the constitution as it is currently written. Get a bad set of people sent to the convention, and the country becomes a different place overnight with no real ability to do anything about it short of another civil war.

 

[AHM]

Because if the Red States combine to convene a constitutional convention,
it's obvious that they would pass an anti-2A amendment.

What leads you to believe that first they would be in control, ...

So you're saying that if you and 36 other like-minded states
got together to propose an amendment,
that 13 other moonbat states are like totally going to determine its content?

... and second that because red states started it they would have the votes to do what they wanted? ...

Uh, because 37 > 13?

 

[NHKevin]

Why do you think red states would be helpful this way? Plenty of red states have restrictions on guns.

 

[firestorm]

So you're saying that if you and 36 other like-minded states
got together to propose an amendment,
that 13 other moonbat states are like totally going to determine its content?


Uh, because 37 > 13?

I'm saying that you are not going to get 37 states worth of appointed people who agree on the second amendment with us. Who knows what you end up with when you get 15 different views of what would be best for gun policy and then another 15 straight anti gun views all together to make up what the new constitution will say?

A constitutional convention IS NOT states proposing amendments and then going through the regular process. It is a shortcut of the regular process, with no rules that bind them in a real way and no way to predict the outcome. It is stupidly dangerous and I still can't understand why people push for it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Yes or No is the answer I'm looking for, not avoidance to answer.

Do you live in a bubble? Wake the f*** up.

 

[Hoover]

I've never understood Heller's common use standard. Where did it come from? 2A says nothing about it. How does something become in common use if the states can ban it from being sold in the first instance? Seems circular to me.

Most believe they needed to write the opinion that way to keep Kennedy on board as the 5th justice in the majority. Kennedy seems like a decent guy but he constantly want to find a middle ground and be more of a mediator than a judge. If it were solely up to Alito, Thomas and Scalia, the decision would have be fantastic. Most on the court don’t seem as tepid.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Do you live in a bubble? Wake the f*** up.

Do you care to answer or do you just pontificate?

Let's retrace: I refused to comment in the open forum about a point someone made regarding taking direct action against an elected official. So far none of you cared to broadcast in the open your intentions either but I digress. The person I responded to came back and accused me of being weak for not openly supporting his suggestion to burn someone's house down. The rest of you piled up with inane comments like the one above. Yet, NONE of you openly answered in the definitive if you support burning down of a sheriff's home if that sheriff invoked a wholesale gun confiscation under the guise of following the red flag law. NONE!

So before you get on your high horse, prove that you have the horse to get on.

 

[xtry51]

Do you care to answer or do you just pontificate?

Let's retrace: I refused to comment in the open forum about a point someone made regarding taking direct action against an elected official. So far none of you cared to broadcast in the open your intentions either but I digress. The person I responded to came back and accused me of being weak for not openly supporting his suggestion to burn someone's house down. The rest of you piled up with inane comments like the one above. Yet, NONE of you openly answered in the definitive if you support burning down of a sheriff's home if that sheriff invoked a wholesale gun confiscation under the guise of following the red flag law. NONE!

So before you get on your high horse, prove that you have the horse to get on.

If a sheriff tried to confiscate my guns, I'd burn his house down and hang his family's bodies from a nearby tree as a warning.

 

[AHM]

I'm saying that you are not going to get 37 states worth of appointed people who agree on the second amendment with us. Who knows what you end up with when you get 15 different views of what would be best for gun policy and then another 15 straight anti gun views all together to make up what the new constitution will say?

A constitutional convention IS NOT states proposing amendments and then going through the regular process.

Because there's like a Federal law against a state circulating a Request for Comments on a specific proposed agenda for a Constitutional Convention.

It is a shortcut of the regular process, with no rules that bind them in a real way and no way to predict the outcome. It is stupidly dangerous and I still can't understand why people push for it.

At least now when people ask the rhetorical question
"how come conservatives never fight like Donks do?",
I know what thread to point them at for an object lesson.

 

[AHM]

How topical!

Pennsylvania Senate Committee Passes Federal Constitutional Convention Legislation - The Pennsylvania Daily Star

On Monday, the Pennsylvania Senate State Government Committee approved a resolution calling for a “Convention of States” to amend the U.S. Constitution to check congressional power and federal spending.

pennsylvaniadailystar.com

Hat tip: Instapundit co-blogger Stephen "Vodkapundit" Green
("THAT MAKES 18")

See also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/11/how-the-procedures-for-a-modern-amendments-convention-may-unfold/

 

[Glockster30]

I'm shocked! Healey didn't sign it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Do you care to answer or do you just pontificate?

Let's retrace: I refused to comment in the open forum about a point someone made regarding taking direct action against an elected official. So far none of you cared to broadcast in the open your intentions either but I digress. The person I responded to came back and accused me of being weak for not openly supporting his suggestion to burn someone's house down. The rest of you piled up with inane comments like the one above. Yet, NONE of you openly answered in the definitive if you support burning down of a sheriff's home if that sheriff invoked a wholesale gun confiscation under the guise of following the red flag law. NONE!

So before you get on your high horse, prove that you have the horse to get on.

I ride the AG horse. I think she is beautiful.

 

[babygorilla]

Do YOU support burning down private residences of people of law enforcement?

 

[babygorilla]

Do you care to answer or do you just pontificate?

Let's retrace: I refused to comment in the open forum about a point someone made regarding taking direct action against an elected official. So far none of you cared to broadcast in the open your intentions either but I digress. The person I responded to came back and accused me of being weak for not openly supporting his suggestion to burn someone's house down. The rest of you piled up with inane comments like the one above. Yet, NONE of you openly answered in the definitive if you support burning down of a sheriff's home if that sheriff invoked a wholesale gun confiscation under the guise of following the red flag law. NONE!

So before you get on your high horse, prove that you have the horse to get on.

Actually, I just used your words against you.

Also, see my response. I believe as these great men did, and others unquoted, and will act in the same manner, should it become necessary.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

I ride the AG horse. I think she is beautiful.

View attachment 581094

Whenever I see a quote where there is a "..." between words, I am reminded of the hatchet job media did on Trump's statement on Charlotte. They too, cut together two VERY different statements. Perhaps you should read the real transcript(or watch) of what Healey said. I bet there are quite a few statements and points made in between the two statements Fox put on the screen.

I'm no fan of Healy but lying is not needed to expose her. Her actions and policies are those of a political creature who does anything to get to the federal level. She doesn't want to stay in MA: the armpit of America. She's made those grand pronouncements in 2015 so Hillary would pick her for her cabinet. This is why nobody in her office ever bothered to explain what that announcement meant. To date, there were no prosecutions based on her "clarification of AWB". She wants to sound good enough to get attention in Washington and at the same time have no "skeletons" in her closet that could trip her up. If she ever starts prosecuting based on her "clarification", it will give FPC/GOAL/GOA enough to take the case to the supreme court where it will lose and Healy can kiss her national political career goodbye. Healy is not dumb, nor is she clueless about where MA sands on the grand scheme in the US.
I'd rather have a politician like Healy than a politician who actually believes in what she says(think Warren).

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

View attachment 581097View attachment 581098

Good quotes.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Actually, I just used your words against you.

Yeah... you didn't...

 

[babygorilla]

Fact is, if you choose to stick your head in the sand, you will lose your right to raise your head again! We must continue to push against the onslaught of anti-Constitutional authoritarian culture that needs the people disarmed in order to rule over them.

Yeah... you didn't...

NOW who's head is in the sand?

 

[bigbravehog]

"the Fourth Circuit held that ‘weapons most useful in military service’ " - semi-automatic ARs are not military weapons